Author
Topic: Mass Effect 3 (expect spoilers for the entire series)

And that's where the question comes in; would you have rather had more single player content or the multiplayer component? A more polished overall experience or the multiplayer? There's no correct answer to this question. It's all personal taste.

Quote

Is your decision how you make your moneys worth, after all...

I disagree with this. Playing through the main game again does extend the life of the product, sure, but I would have rather had a longer or more involved single-player experience, and you could argue that creating the multiplayer component took away from this. Does that mean that I'm not getting my money's worth if I don't play the multiplayer? What about the SOCOM series. Most of us just avoided the solo campaign and went straight for multiplayer. Did we get our money's worth even though we missed out on some content created by the developers?

I just disagree with the current notion running around the industry that every game needs multiplayer. It only extends the life of games with an active community of players, and very few games are able to keep up the numbers to justify this feature being added to a game.

And that's where the question comes in; would you have rather had more single player content or the multiplayer component? A more polished overall experience or the multiplayer? There's no correct answer to this question. It's all personal taste.

Quote

Is your decision how you make your moneys worth, after all...

I disagree with this. Playing through the main game again does extend the life of the product, sure, but I would have rather had a longer or more involved single-player experience, and you could argue that creating the multiplayer component took away from this. Does that mean that I'm not getting my money's worth if I don't play the multiplayer? What about the SOCOM series. Most of us just avoided the solo campaign and went straight for multiplayer. Did we get our money's worth even though we missed out on some content created by the developers?

I just disagree with the current notion running around the industry that every game needs multiplayer. It only extends the life of games with an active community of players, and very few games are able to keep up the numbers to justify this feature being added to a game.

Quoted for awesomeness. I'm always devastated (ok, not devastated, but more like a little ticked off) when I can't get all the best gear in a game like War of the Lions because I'm a game-playing hermit and can't get the stupid PS3 ad-hoc stuff to work right.

And come on guys I doubt they will detract from the main game just because they are adding multiplayer. They specifically recruited for multiplayer development. After playing Mass Effect 2 I have total faith in them.

And come on guys I doubt they will detract from the main game just because they are adding multiplayer. They specifically recruited for multiplayer development. After playing Mass Effect 2 I have total faith in them.

Uncharted 2 added multiplayer and was still a way better game than the original. Can't wait for that trailer!

And come on guys I doubt they will detract from the main game just because they are adding multiplayer. They specifically recruited for multiplayer development. After playing Mass Effect 2 I have total faith in them.

Uncharted 2 added multiplayer and was still a way better game than the original. Can't wait for that trailer!

Seriously, everyone was saying stuff like this befoe the game's release and we all know how that turned out.A multiplayer mode, if done right, can add dozens of hours of entertainment, that's more than any single player campaign can offer. People are still playing uncharted 2's multiplayer, 14 months after release. Believe it or not, multiplayer sells games. Publishers know this, that's why they invest in it, even when it's franchises that never had it in the first place, it pays off when the game hits the stores. Gamers see it as added value. If it's successful, you sell a few extra maps or characters through dlc and even make an extra profit.Do you seriously think that they would compromise the game's campaign in any way to add multiplayer? The expectations for this game are huge, if it fails to deliver no multiplayer will save them from the meltdown, no matter how good it is.

you could argue that creating the multiplayer component took away from this

Actually, you can't. It is a statement with no facts to reinforce it, and thus there is no argument to be had. You can speculate and bitch accordingly, but it changes nothing since multiplayer is going to be in the final product, period dot. You might want to save your energy for the game's release and then consider jumping to conclusions about multiplayer directly impacting the quality of the single-player experience if the game sucks ass (unlikely).

Gamers are a bunch of blubbering vaginas. HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO MY GAME

I disagree with this. Playing through the main game again does extend the life of the product, sure, but I would have rather had a longer or more involved single-player experience, and you could argue that creating the multiplayer component took away from this.

This is a false dichotomy. What you seem to be missing is game development is not a zero-sum game. A game's budget (and therefore resources) is based on what the publisher thinks it's going to sell. If they add a feature (like multiplayer) that they believe will increase the number of copies sold then they can also increase the budget, hire more people to work on that feature, etc. This doesn't have to happen at the expense of the single-player campaign at all.

Now, one might reasonably question whether multiplayer options are really going to sell more copies of Mass Effect 3, but at the very least EA seems to think so.

Still no confirmation of multiplayer or not. Just a sweet trailer and Shepard being a badass.

My problem with multiplayer is that 1) it detracts from the single player game and/or 2) it affects how the game is designed, esp. for co-op. Look at something like Borderlands, where abilities are geared toward multiplayer. Skills and such can become fixated on co-op play. and 3) it perpetuates multi-player.

As more multi-player games are made and extensions put on regularly single-player games, it will only snowball and grow. Eventually single-player games could be extinct if developers determine that only multi-player sells. The emphasis is already turning toward that. There is no story in multi-player games. There is no artistic experience, and thus if multi-player wins out over single-player, video games will cease to be on the same level as books, film, and music. They'll be more like board games. Scrabble might be fun and unique, but it's not a powerful experience.

Regardless, people are assuming ME3 has multiplayer, but I honestly don't think it will now that I've seen the trailer. I think Bioware will end it with dignity. After that, they can fuck up however they want and I won't care. (Well, a little maybe).

My problem with multiplayer is that 1) it detracts from the single player game

Nope. Several people already mentioned Uncharted 2 as a perfect example of how wrong your statement is before you even said it, but I guess that's inconvenient to your desire to spew FUD and so it's easier to just pretend that no one mentioned it.

Quote

and/or 2) it affects how the game is designed, esp. for co-op. Look at something like Borderlands, where abilities are geared toward multiplayer. Skills and such can become fixated on co-op play. and

Maybe it's because Borderlands was by design, a First Person Shooter in the gameplay style of Diablo whose emphasis was multiplayer. Not exactly a good example to use to make your case.

Quote

3) it perpetuates multi-player.

What is this supposed to even mean.

Quote

As more multi-player games are made and extensions put on regularly single-player games, it will only snowball and grow. Eventually single-player games could be extinct if developers determine that only multi-player sells. The emphasis is already turning toward that.

Ahahaha. More FUD. Rest assured, single player gaming experiences aren't going anywhere. Having multi-player tacked on as an optional component hurts no one. The ability for other friends to perhaps control squad-mates in combat for Mass Effect 3 if anything, would be a fantastic optional feature.

Quote

There is no story in multi-player games. There is no artistic experience, and thus if multi-player wins out over single-player, video games will cease to be on the same level as books, film, and music.

Ahahaha. Seriously, wow. Story has been slowly but surely taking more of a role in MMORPGs, and ironically enough, the same company behind Mass Effect is developing The Old Republic, an MMORPG that will have such a heavy story focus that Bioware has numerous full time writers that have been penning material for over two years, all of which will be delivered through insane amounts of voice acting complete with cutscenes using the same presentation style and conversation trees that are present in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and other Bioware products.

And as before, other players being able to control squad-mates in Mass Effect 3, or hell, Mass Effect 2 would be awesome. Same exact cinematic story experience, except with friends. Sounds like a winner to me.

Quote

They'll be more like board games. Scrabble might be fun and unique, but it's not a powerful experience.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, free your mind and open it up to possibilities.